Commented TiVo, fearful that the new requirements would lead to CTPs locking it out, "If each cable operator deploys set-top boxes with its own understanding of an open industry standard, the result may be an outcome that is neither standard nor open."

The FCC listened and now it's come back with a revised version of the plan, which makes it clear the CTPs can deploy their own "open" standards as they wish, but the standards must be well-documented and easy enough that PC and set-top box makers could implement them on the receiver side with no contact with the cable provider.

[Image Source: Streaming Media Hosting]

The new set of rules, set to be made mandatory by June 2, 2014, also clarifies what capabilities are expected of the HD streams:

recordable high-definition video

closed captioning data

service discovery

video transport

remote control command pass-through

DLNA Premium Video Profile, an HD-compliant version of the secure-streaming standard set to be ratified in 2013, was suggested as one possible option for cable companies.

A minor caveat is that small CTPs, with less than 400,000 customers, will get an additional 3 months to comply with the ruling (they will have to be compliant by Sept. 2, 2014).

So because we have regulated the market, let's regulate the market some more. Forgive me, but that argument is terrible.

Let them run their business how they want. If they want to limit XYZ service or feature that's incentive for someone else to provide it. There's nothing stopping a company (or new investor) from going to the actual content producers and buying their content to distribute in a different manner. Or from creating a new content distribution system where content producers big and small can sell their goods. I'm thinking of something akin to online cable tv, with ala-cart channels.

Anyway, all this does is keep us in the same business model, with the same players who are now even more entrenched with one another.

No, allowing someone to become a monopoly is the exact opposite of regulation. Normally this position would require antitrust regulation, but they were able to obtain legal monopoly rights based on the cost of infrastructure and whatever else you may want to infer, so the FCC has no control over their monopoly status.

Preventing monopolization of other aspects of cable is more in line with free market rights than allowing monopolies to abuse their position.

Because satellite sucks and no cares about them? I mean seriously, I don't watch much TV, usually only when it's raining or snowing outside- which is precisely when satellite tv shows "error: signal loss" on the screen. it's about as useful as a light bulb that only works in the day time. lol.

Also I should add that the FCC is basically protecting the ability to do what you're describing. If you actually read the article the fear is that the cable providers will block out regular competition by encrypting their signals so that only their own set top boxes may stream, effectively reducing the value of competing boxes.

You could apply this to your "digital distribution" scenario as well. if cable companies were to create their own distribution service they could simply block other distributors from their network. thanks to their monopoly contracts, competitors can't come in (most can't afford to lay wire to begin with) and local consumers would have no choice but to go with their current provider. at that point the only choice is to regulate.

Exactly, the cable companies want to do everything in their power to stop the inevitable change from cable provided programming to direct online streaming. If consumers don't stay on top of this they might just get their way.